Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[softengine]

Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.

Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.

As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.

We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.

President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.

So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.

Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.

Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.

Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.

[hoosiermama]

Of course they think moral decay is all Bush's fault.....

EVERYTHING is all Bush's fault! Haven't you read their talking points.
If the "rapture" were to come tonight it would be all Bush's fault!

Floods, famine, earthquakes.......Bush's fault.
Murder, mayhem, malaria......Bush's fault My cat just threw up......you got it.... it's......

[prairiebreeze]

Conservatives must be patient. Change takes time and the liberal agenda has taken 50 years to blossom and corrupt to the extent it has. Conservatives must stay in power,and even then, changes to take back and rebuild a solid core to our country will take TIME! And much patience and effort from the adults in this country.

President Bush in most instances sees the big picture. He also is pragmatic enough to realize that he must give as well as take in order to make progress, even when that progress is painfully slow. He holds his nose at times too, to the concessions he has to make along the way in order to ultimately obtain a greater good.

There's way too much at stake to behave and believe like those who seem to be 12 years old who wander the halls of FR bashing the President and threatening to withhold votes etc in order to "teach Bush and the Pubbies a lesson". In fact, they demonstrate they are no more emotionally or mentally mature than those that hang out over at DU. They demonstrate impatience and a juvenile need for immediate gratification. Their grasp of long-term committment is practicaly non-existent.

It's time for adults to be adults and understand the need for patience, grit and stick-to-it-iveness. That's the way we rebuid America. And supporting Bush's re-election is the next important step in a long line of steps to be taken to that end.

Thanks for the ping Peach.

Prairie

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Vote Democrat...."

....if you favor partial birth abortion...gay marriage....are soft of terrorism and hate rich people for being more sucessful than you are.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"we desperately need a national energy policy

Why?"

Why not?

[ckilmer]

"Overwhelmingly those given amnesty by Republicans in 1986--voted democrat."
And if they all voted for a Republican it would be alright?
/////////////////////////////
The writer is making the argument that bush policies that conservatives don't like should be tolerated because they help build a long running republican ruling majority. and with a ruling majority the pubbies could then do more stuff conservatives like.

All I was saying was that according to the terms of the writers own arguement Bush is enacting policies which may help his administration but in the long term--they will do in the republicans.

[Ophiucus]

Prepare for the 12 Pack of Perpetual Pouting Pitchforkers to slither in here and solicit the Constitution Party as an alternative.

lol...ya big meanie! It's a rational postion to take - so it can't be a "true" conservative position.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

...Bush's fault? LOL

[SuziQ]

Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.

I believe he's trying to get that 15-20% independent vote in the middle. If he can get them and by extension have them vote for the Repubs. for Congress that will be a great feat!!

[Tamzee]

I think Hillary's Lovely Legs stated it quite beautifully...

[SoCalPol]

l. Because the Dems have also been in control of congress for many of those years
2. The liberals are in control of the education systems
3. The liberals are in control of the major media
4. The liberal unions control to much.
5. And to long to continue. It takes a conservative to understand this.

[inquest]

"Why not?" doesn't sound like much of a plea of desperation, which is what the author was trying to put forth.

[chicagolady]

What I mean is if I am trying to decide between a cupcake

1) double choclate fudge

2) plain white

and I pick the plain white cupcake because I have to watch my sugar but I rationalize that the white cupcake is ok...

the lesser of the 2 evils is evil still.
It is still hurting my blood sugar but I rationalize it is ok that I am choosing something not exceptable.

[Tamzee]

The Lesser of 2 Evils is Evil Still.

Oh good heavens.... are you seriously calling Bush "evil"???

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I understand what the phrase "lesser of two evils" means (though I strongly disagree with any characterization of GWB as "evil"). Are you advocating that people abandon President Bush, or not? I can't quite tell from your reply.

[ckilmer]

Issues & Insights
Monday, February 02, 2004



Global HMO
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Immigration: For those who think that illegal aliens are a good deal because they will work for such low wages, consider this figure — $9 billion.

That rather large sum is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's low-end estimate of how much is spent each year on health care for illegal immigrants, not by themselves but by others.

So while illegal alien labor might be cheap for businesses that employ undocumented workers, it isn't, as Rohrabacher points out, for taxpayers.

Rohrabacher arrives at the $9 billion figure by multiplying $21 billion, the amount of uncompensated health care services provided last year by the American Hospital Association's member facilities, by 43%, the estimated portion of the uninsured in the U.S. that are illegal immigrants.

The real number is likely higher than $9 billion. The American Hospital Association represents most — roughly 70% — but not all, of the country's health care providers.

Rohrabacher isn't going after the entire amount yet, though. He's starting out with legislation that would "mitigate the damage" Congress caused by including $1 billion in the Medicare reform bill to pay for emergency health care services for illegal immigrants.

In a budget that exceeds $2 trillion, a billion dollars is a relative pittance. But it will grow faster than a metastasizing tumor.

"I will tell you now," Rohrabacher said last week from the House, "there is no one in this body that does not know and understand that a $1 billion program like this starting off, just opening the door, is going to end up being a $50 billion program 10 years down the line."

Unbelievers should be reminded of the Medicare reform bill that provided $400 billion over 10 years for a prescription drug benefit.

Passed last fall, the law has hardly had time to take shape. Yet the administration is already projecting the cost of the prescription benefit to be $540 billion over 10 years, more than a one-third increase less than two months after it was signed.

Rohrabacher's bill, should it become law, will have, at best, a modest impact on illegal immigration and the costs taxpayers bear for them. But if it stirs people to their senses and leads to an eventual — and rational — denial of health care and other government services to illegal immigrants, it would have a much larger effect.

Too bad the effect would be diminished, because the message of the president's de facto amnesty plan will still provide a strong incentive for more illegals to enter and wait until the next amnesty comes. As long as that's the case, the U.S. will continue to serve as HMO to Mexico, if not the world.

[hoosiermama]

CAUSE!

1. Dependancy of Saudi Oil
2. Improving the condition/number of our "electrical plants"
3. Dependancy on Arabic Oil
4. Development of new technology
5. Dependancy on ME Oil
6. Alternative energy sources

I for one would like to delete 1,3,5 of the above. That'll only happen if we do 2,4,6!

[Tamzee]

PhiKapMom, this would be a terrific column for the Bush-Cheney 04 ping list...

He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on.

The folks on your list are the ones "smart enough to figure out what is going on" ;-)

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Great post. I like this reasoned approach to pointing out disagreement, but seeing beyond today to imagine the big picture.

It can hardly be argued that no one..NO ONE..is going to change the mindset of this nation with one wave of the hand in one presidential term.

[inquest]

Actually, dependency on Mideastern oil can be reduced simply by imposing decent tariffs on it. Once that's done - you know that "invisible hand" that Adam Smith described over two centuries ago and was the basis of our unprecedented economic success in the ensuing generations? That'll take care of 2, 4, and 6.

[hoosiermama]

Say you've got the Bush Basher's lingo down pat! Go to the head!

If he were as powerful as they give him credit for and really did cause all the things he's accused of, certainly he'd solve ALL of our national problems with in three years of taking office......too bad he's just a human and not Superman, Batman, or God all Mighty.

But then they're all perfect with perfect wisdom, psychic powers, and crystal balls*.......

*Personally I prefer "W"'s brass ones